Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

World|Mon, Jul. 07 2008 01:53 PM EDT

Pope to Greet One of the World's Least Religious Nations

By Michelle A. Vu|Christian Post Reporter

The host country for the Catholic World Youth Day celebration later this month is one of the least religious nations in the western world, research showed Friday.

Most Australians (52 percent) never or very seldom attend a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple for religious purposes, according to a survey by Germany’s Bertelsmann Foundation.

Only a quarter of the population described themselves as deeply religious. Meanwhile, 44 percent say religion does not play a central role in their lives. And nearly a third (28 percent) said they are not religious at all.

Moreover, nearly half of Australians (48 percent) do not partake in personal prayer, and a third (31 percent) do not believe in God or a divine power or in life after death. For half of Australians, religion is less important than family, partners, work/career, leisure time and politics.

The survey is the most extensive study done on religion in major cultures of the world. The worldwide opinion poll questioned 21,000 adults in 21 countries, finding that only four countries showed lower interest in religion than Australia – Russia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

The United States, in comparison, has a self-described religious population of 89 percent. Moreover, the majority of Americans (62 percent) consider themselves to be highly religious. Only 11 percent of Americans are not religious.

Australia’s Catholic community is the country’s largest faith group at 25 percent of the population. But the most religious are small-numbered free-churches and Pentecostal Protestants, including the Charismatic Movements.

"On the eve of World Youth Day it is interesting to note the strong religious vitality recorded amongst the nation's youth," Martin Rieger, leader of Bertelsmann Foundation's religious project, said in a statement.

"Christianity and Catholicism in Australia are not blossoming, but equally are not in danger of losing their core roots,” he said.

Pope Benedict XVI will be in Sydney to celebrate Catholic World Youth Day events, which will take place July 15-20. Hundreds of thousands of youths from Australia and around the world are expected to participate in the celebrations, which will end with a papal mass that is expected to draw up to half a million people.

The visit will be Pope Benedict XVI’s first to Australia.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here's a good summary on baptism I posted a different article.

    Paul said he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. You would think if it was as important as evangelism, he would have been sent to baptize as well.

    1 Cor 1:7 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

    Example of being baptized with the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit poured out...), and not having received water baptism: Acts 10:39-48

    Example of being baptized with water, and not having received the Holy Spirit: Acts 8:14-17

    There are many examples where we are told to believe and be saved (Luke 7:50; John 3:16-18; Acts 10:39-48; Acts 16:31; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), that it is by grace, not a work.

    1 Corinthians 6:11 speaks of the washing and renewal we have by the Holy Spirit, not water baptism (Titus 3:5).

    Hebrews 10:22 speaks of having our hearts sprinkled (this is by the Holy Spirit), and our bodies cleaned (water baptism).

    1 Peter 3:21-22 speaks of the water that symbolizes the baptism that saves us - that by the Holy Spirit.
    21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand - with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

    Yes, there are instances where we are told to call on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:9-15), or confess the name of Jesus (Acts 2:21), or be baptized (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16). But there are too many instances where it is by faith that we are saved. All these have in common is faith. It is the faith that saves us, and the actions that give evidence to the faith being real.

    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/more-on-water-baptism-and-whether-it-is-for-childreninfants/
    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/baptism-water-or-spirit-required-or-not-is-it-for-infants/

  • Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:17 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Plus wouldn't it make sense that if water baptism were an absolute requirment for a person to be saved, that every verse of scripture that taught one how to be saved would always include this requirment as well in order to not mislead people? Plus would not every letter that went to each church include the water baptism requirement as well?

  • igh »
    Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    A simple ceremony but one that has significant meaning, you have repented and turned from your old life unto Christs. The Scripture does tell us that some believers received the Holy Spirit before water Baptism. John the Baptist said Jesus would baptise us with the Holy Ghost! Washed clean. A new life in Christ Jesus.

    strongs numbers calls it ceremonial ablution.

  • igh »
    Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    someone flagged my post! grrrrr

  • Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I want to reiterate what I've said before.

    I have known people in most denominations that I believe had strong faith in Christ and nothing else for salvation and recognized what the Bible said as truth and realized the teaching of the church was not necessarily in line with the word of God and lived lives consistent with belonging to Christ. Not that I matter all that much, I'm just sharing an opinion.

    Of course, the RCC teaches some things wrong. I believe all denominations have strengths and weaknesses and teach (or do) some things right and some things wrong. Sometimes the denomination will hold a Biblically accurate position, but individual churches will teach things contrary to that doctrine.

    We need to love each God and each other and call Christians to a right doctrinal position, based upon the word of God. Unity is a good thing, but not at the expense of what God has said - something John taught.

    The question is whether one is trusting in Christ alone for salvation or not.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "A third observation might be, presented with these two undeniable historical facts, why one would gamble on believer's baptism instead of what was done by the Apostles and those that followed. "

    Paul said he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. You'd think if it was as important as evangelism, he would have been sent to baptize as well.

    1 Cor 1:7 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

    Actually, I can and have defended the position that both infant baptism and water baptism is not effective for salvation.

    Christ said one must be born again, which Christ explained that one needed to be born of water and of spirit, and then explained what that meant: to be born of water, that which comes from the mother' flesh with an infant's birth (flesh gives birth to flesh). Just as He told us what it is to be born again, Spirit give birth to spirit; that is to say to be born spiritually from the Holy Spirt. (John 3:3-6)

    Christ said we need to believe to have eternal life, not mentioning baptism, in John 3:15-18. But He DID make the point that not believing condemns a person.

    Please explain how an infant can believe that Christ came from God the Father.

    We see that simple water baptism is insufficient, we must be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Again, water baptism followed baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-16)

    The Jailer and his family household believed, and only later were they baptized, note that nothing indicates infants were present. In fact, no scripture indicates infant baptism is appropriate. (Acts 16:31-33)

    *I* have a household, with 5 kids living in it, none of them infants, but one is an adult. It is not true to say a household normally has infants. It IS true to say that a household normally has an infant AT ONE POINT IN TIME.

    Paul said we were baptized by the Holy Spirit not water (1 Cor 12:13 ).
    According to Paul, we were saved through the washing of the rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, not water (Titus 3:4-5 4)

    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/baptism-water-or-spirit-required-or-not-is-it-for-infants/

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Historical writings show that infant baptism is supported even by the Apostles"

    Please provide references. According to what I have read, infant baptism did not begin until the second or third century. In fact, Tertullian was apparently against it (not that I agree with his reasoning.
    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/earlyhistory.htm
    http://www.abcog.org/magic.htm

    "believer's baptism didn't make it's appearance until somewhere in the tailspin of the Protestant Reformation."

    How do you explain the inconvenient truth in the Bible that Believer's were baptized after coming to believe?
    Acts 8:12
    But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

    Acts 18:8
    Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

    Also, please explain how an infant is able to meet the requirement of belief in Christ for baptism?
    Mark 16:15-16
    15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    tallguy,
    Why wasn't Jesus baptized as a baby? He was dedicated, which is scriptural. Why did He wait until He was an adult?
    I think He was trying to be an example....which apparently the RCC didn't pick up on.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:31 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    fullgospel, can you show us from the Bible where any of the apostles specifically endorsed the specific practice of infant baptism?

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:58 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    For the first 300 years of Christianity, the “Roman” Catholic Church simply did not exist. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the edict of Milan in A.D. 313; later in A.D. 325, he called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify the empire. He believed Christianity could unite the Roman Empire, which at the time was beginning to fragment and divide. The results were anything but positive. Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so he allowed and even promoted the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs.

    The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. One example of this is the “supremacy” of the Roman bishop; the supremacy of the Rome bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of Roman Emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman Emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It looks like cccccccc (now dddd) is making good on his threat to delete all of star2's and Prophet's posts.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    FullGospel,

    If the popes are supposed to be infallible, why have later popes contradicted previous ones?

    http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Infallibility.html

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Actually, believer's baptism is exactly what Scriptures speaks of every place it mentions baptism. It was not until the 2nd century that infant baptism began.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    " interesting that infant baptism is not spoken of before the second century."

    Two things are interesting to me. Historical writings show that infant baptism is supported even by the Apostles, from whom we received it. Second, believer's baptism didn't make it's appearance until somewhere in the tailspin of the Protestant Reformation.

    A third observation might be, presented with these two undeniable historical facts, why one would gamble on believer's baptism instead of what was done by the Apostles and those that followed. I think it all comes down to if one realizes that Jesus founded a Church 2,000 years ago that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against and its beliefs were given a universal name (Catholic) and you were a follower of Jesus, what would your Protestant family and friends say? That's ultimately who's keeping you in an indefensible position of who's right, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians and 33,000 other conflicting versions of "the Gospel truth."

    Brothers and sisters, come home to Jesus' Church.

  • igh »
    Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    pope is not an authority figure in the body of Christ Jesus. He is an usurper and a leader in the rebellion of satans. You have been warned.

    1Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

    now i have to exercise and go to the store for some apple pie! yummers baby! alamode with ice cold milk , ty Jesus!!

  • igh »
    Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    infant baptism is crazy logic. I do believe lutherans do it out of just a nice thing to do, a tradition that has nothing to do with washing away there sins or saving them.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Its interesting that infant baptism is not spoken of before the second century.

    http://www.saintbarbara.org/faith/sacraments/baptism/baptism.cfm

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Efforts were made to reconcile. But the Pope would not give up his claims to power, and [the Orthodox church] would not compromise [their] doctrine.

    "Rome went independent. Unchecked by any kind of "peer review" by the Eastern Patriarchs, Rome's theological innovations proceeded unchecked. Within 500 years after the Great Schism, they had become so warped that they incited a revolution - the Protestant Reformation. "

    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/split-Roman-Church.htm

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Tallguy (continued)

    The Bishop of Rome wanted to be supreme bishop. Additionally, the Roman church modified the Nicene Creed, after having agreed to not do so. "A council of Western Bishops (under Rome) changed the Nicene Creed to read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON ("Filioque" in Latin.) [The Orthodox bishops] objected that this destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity by undermining the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. It made the Holy Spirit merely a force generated by the interaction of the Father and the Son. Rome would not listen. Their faith in the Holy Spirit began to erode, and it showed in their doctrine. Unsure of the Holy Spirit's ability to guide the Church, Rome continued to falsely boost the centralized power of the Papacy. In time they came to believe the Pope to be infallible in matters of doctrine. Unsure of the Holy Spirit's ability to pray with us and for us, they elevated Mary and the Saints to almost be a means of "getting around Jesus.... In 1054 the crisis came to a head. A Papal legate, in a fit of anger over our "refusal" to acknowledge the Pope's inflated claims and warped doctrine, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch then excommunicated the Pope."

    "In the 11th century the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to that, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during periods of iconoclasm and the Photian schism."

    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/split-Roman-Church.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephaly
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church_organization

    So, The Roman Papal Legate excommunicated the Patriarch of the Orthodx church in Constantinople because the patriarch refused to accept Rome's inflated clais to power and poor doctrine.

    Thus, I stand by what I said. Rome split from the Orthodox church. Rome split from the other apostolic churches, because of their own bad doctrine and lust for power. By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    tallguy,

    "By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, since it split from the Orthodox church."

    Just to let you know I am not making this stuff up, or re-writing history, I thought I would provide you with evidence for what I said.

    1st, the definition of split I am using: "to tear or rend apart"
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/split

    2nd, in reference to the split of the Roman Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church. I am not Orthodox or Roman Catholic, so I may have minor details wrong. But this is based upon research I have done online. Until the bishop of Rome tried to establish a hierarchy in the church, all churches were guided by Bishops. These bishops would have the churches of a particular geographic area under their care. All bishops were considered to be the same level. In some cases, there were bishops who guided other bishops - much like a pastor of pastors. But these bishops were still at the same level of authority as all other bishops - there was no hierarchy as exists in the Roman Catholic Church. It was through agreements of the majority of bishops that major doctrinal issues were decided. The bishop of bishops of an area is known as a Partriach or an archbishop or a metropolitan. The bishop of Rome was considered to be at the same level as the patriarchs who guided churches of various regions - one among equals. The patriarch of Rome was given the honor of "first place in honor" because of its influence in the Roman Empire. But this was a honor, not a rank or position of leadership.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Whoop for National Chicken Day! July 11th!

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    whup

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Whoop for World Youth Day!

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    As I've said before. If what the "Fathers" taught wasn't scriptural, then I neither accept their teachings, nor acknowlege them as patriarchs.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:22 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - Amen brother.

    FullGospel - The Word of God establishes what truth is. If anyone gives a teaching that is contrary to the Word of God it is to be rejected. Infantile Baptism is not taught in the Word of God. To say that it is is to lack understanding of the Word of God. I shared why infantile baptism is not of God on this thread. I would encourage you to read it. It is a 4 part write up and begins with the Wed July 9 2008 1:43pm post.

    Be like the Bereans and just don't blindly accept what some early church fathers said was true but search the scripture to see if what they say aligns itself with God's Word. If it doesn't agree then reject it, you won't lose your salvation because you do.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:14 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    I like those dates of people A.D. 200+.

    Let's see how the original church viewed baptism.

    Acts 8:12 "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."
    What? No infants? That's sacrilege!

    Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
    Babies can't "gladly recieve his words", that can't even understand language.
    Acts 19:4 "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
    Babies do not understand repentance.
    Acts 22:16: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
    Babies can't call on the name of the Lord.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:02 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    I'm sorry. Um, what books of the Bible did those people write? And where are their opinions found in the Bible? And if baby baptisms are from God....why wasn't Jesus baptized as a baby? (He was dedicated, which is scriptural...baby baptisms are not). Why did Jesus wait until He was older?
    I prefer to follow Jesus, not a man's self-made tradition.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Prophet asks Tallguy: tallguy,
    Seems to me that you're the one that's ignoring the facts.
    On another point, do you actually believe that baby baptisms are the way to do it?

    Hippolytus
    "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

    Origen
    "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

    "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

    This last historical writing of the earliest Christians was 150 years before we had the Bible. The belief that we don't have to do anything (walk an aisle, say a prayer, etc.), but it's all dependent on God's grace goes all the way back. Peace, my friend.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Prophet, my friend, you say:
    "But when Jesus said to his disciple while Jesus was on the cross "Behold your mother", that Catholics say that He was talking to the Church, and that Mary is mother of the Church?
    Catholicism makes no sense."

    Rev. 12:17 says that the devil went off to make war against the woman and her offspring, i.e. those who bear the good news of Jesus. That's all Christians. Peace.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    tallguy,
    Seems to me that you're the one that's ignoring the facts.
    On another point, do you actually believe that baby baptisms are the way to do it?

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    wbmoore
    ???"By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, since it split from the Orthodox church."

    AS IF....

    You can't start remaking history my friend.....

  • Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tallguy1000,

    Please tell me what facts you think I made up?
    I'm more than happy to give you links if you would like, so you can find it for yourself. But I need a hint on what you object to, as I wrote a lot.

  • Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    tallguy,
    What facts are you talking about? The scriptures he quoted or his OPINION that Jesus may have spoke a number of different languages.

    Please be more specific.

  • Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    wbmoore, your facts are so wrong that sadly it's not even worth responding to. Where did you dig this stuff up? Did you just make it up?

  • Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    lina,
    Thanks for your input. I'll be sure to put that in my circular file with the rest of your comments that you post.

  • lina »
    Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    "Pope to Greet One of the World's Least Religious Nations" and wealthiest, happiest, best educated, creative, tolerant, and advanced. There always seems to be a heavy correlation between achievements and less religiosity. I guess its because the "devout" and the "pious" are too busy arguing over minute, unprovable, and frivolous details that separate their equally unprovable faiths. Doesn't leave much time for thinking outside the box now does it?

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Tallguy1000 said
    "if your not Catholic, then you are NOT part of the Holy Church that Jesus founded."

    By your logic, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, since it split from the Orthodox church.

    A bit of history: the Church of Jerusalen started on the day of Pentecost. It was not until afterwards, mid 1st century, that the Church of Rome started. Rome changed the Nicene creed toward the end of the 6th century, and the Orthodox church objected. In 1054 the crisis came to a head when a Papal legate, threw a fit because the Orthodox Church refused to acknowledge the Pope's inflated claims for prominence and distorted doctrine, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch then excommunicated the Pope.

    The problem was with Rome trying to take power and having bad doctrine, they split from the Orthodox Church. The doctrine and power problems continued until they fomented the Protestant Reformation, which was an attempt to rectify the excesses, abuses, and doctrinal problems of the Church of Rome.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Maybe the RCC should invest in super soakers, fill them with holy water and start massive baptizims around the world? Then everyone who gets wet automaticly recives the Holy Spirit and get to go to heaven, RIGHT??? The battle of armageddon ends in a world wide watergun fight.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    tallguy still hasn't answered my baptism questions.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tallguy1000

    We are saved through faith in Christ and nothing else. Christ did not mention a need for baptism by water when speaking of salvation.

    John 3:16
    16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

    Ephesians 2:7-9
    7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Water baptism would be a work, something you do.

    If you think Christ was speaking of needing water baptism when He said we need to be born of water and spirit, you are wrong.

    John 3:3-6
    3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

    Note, that Christ told us what it means to be born of water, that which comes from the mother's flesh with an infant's birth (flesh gives birth to flesh). This is the first birth. In the same way, Christ told us what it is to be born again, Spirit give birth to spirit; that is to say to be born spiritually from the Holy Spirt.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    webmoor,
    Yeah, I know that. I was just commenting on how the Catholic Church changes things around to make it fit their beliefs.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer, you are exactly right. He probably spoke at least three, if not four languages.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, as you know, we must take all scripture into account when dealing with a particular subject.
    Notice who Christ called his mother and brothers:
    Matthew 12:47-50
    47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." 48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

    Obviously in this case, Christ was saying that people who do God's will are those He calls family.

    In many other places, the scripture talks about mother in a physical sense. But on the cross, we see Christ speaking figuratively when he told John, "here is your mother". He was asking John to take care of Mary's needs, as if she were his own mother, which is exactly what John did.
    John 19:25-27
    25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

    The fact that Jesus asked John (whom He loved) to take care of Mary as if she was his own mother does not indicate she should be regarded as the mother of the church.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:42 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Why is it that when Christ told Peter what He did, that it was for Peter and him alone?
    But when Jesus said to his disciple while Jesus was on the cross "Behold your mother", that Catholics say that He was talking to the Church, and that Mary is mother of the Church?
    Catholicism makes no sense.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:06 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore and believer,
    I agree with your assesment of the language thing. And I'm sure that with His disciples He probably spoke their native language...Hebrew.
    And yes, wb, that doesn't negate what Jesus said, but apparently people (Catholics)like to use the aramaic language because it puts a spin on that word that supports their view.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    While stationed in Holland we lived on the economy and met a lot of Dutch kids. In school they learned to speak four languages, French, Dutch, German, and English and many could speak all four fluently, so for any of us to assume Christ only spoke one language is quite an assumption on their part. I imagine anybody involved in the business world would have to speak at least three languages if not four, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and possibly Latin/Roman.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:50 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    The English word, “pope,” comes from the Latin word, “papa,” which means “father.”

    But our Lord told His disciples, (and us through them), “…call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) This had to be meant in a spiritual sense since we all have earthly fathers, while our heavenly Father is a spirit to be worshiped in spirit and truth. (John 4:24).

    On another occasion, when His Apostles were disputing about leadership matters, Our Lord called them together for a disclosure of His organizational plan. He said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” (Matthew 20:25-27) From this, it is clear Jesus was strongly opposed to any “prince” or “princes” exercising dominion over His flock.

    Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.” From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, do not forget that people who are multilingual will switch between languages automatically when speaking with others who are also multilingual.

    I speak English and Spanish, and I switch between English and Spanish when speaking with others who also speak both languages.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    People who believe Christ is the Son of God are living stones - speaking of the faith believers have. Peter showed he was a stone (of faith) because He said Christ was the Son of God.

    Even Peter Himself said believers are living stones.
    1 Peter 2:5-8
    YOU, also, LIKE LIVING STONES, ARE BEIING BUILT INTO A SPIRITUAL HOUSE to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through JESUS CHRIST. For in Scripture it says: "See, I LAY A STONE IN ZION, A CHOSEN AND PRECIOUS CORNERSTONE, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Now to you who believe, THIS STONE IS PRECIOUS. But to those who do not believe, "THE STONE THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CAPSTONE, AND A STONE THAT CAUSE MEN TO STUMBLE AND A ROCK THAT MAKES THEM FALL." They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they were destined for.

    So no, Peter is not that upon which the church was built. Christ was. It was believers of Christ being the Son of God (like Peter) who were used (as stones) to build it with.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Actually, we do not know if he spoke in Greek or Aramaic. But regardless, the word for Peter IS rock, however I disagree that Peter was the foundation upon which Christ built His church. If He did, then that would contradict the scriptures that clearly state otherwise. The only understanding of this scripture is one which is in agreement with other scriptures that state Christ is the stone upon which the church is built. See 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, Ephesians 2:19-21.

    Christ warned the Jews of what would happen, that they would reject Him, and He would become the capstone.

    Psalm 118:21-23
    21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation. 22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 23 the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

    Mt 21:42:43
    42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes"? 43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

    Mk 12:10-12 is similar, except Vs 12 adds, "Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away."

    If Peter was the foundation upon which the church was built, why would Peter saying exactly CHRIST is the foundation stone in Acts 4:8-12?
    8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is "the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone." 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links